President Obama expects to ally himself with big business once again by using crony-capitalist techniques to pass gun control legislation, just as he used them to pass ObamaCare. Reportedly he plans to make sure that the new gun control law benefits big businesses that sell weapons.

They are working on strategies to work around the National Rifle Association which one source said could depend on rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses, like closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or other types of private sales, according to the Washington Post.

When the White House was working on the health care law, Jim Messina, (the White House deputy chief of staff at the time, who went on to manage the 2012 presidential campaign) negotiated with the pharmaceutical companies to get them to pay for pro-ObamaCare television ads.

In exchange, drug lobbyists and White House officials crafted the legislation. “Obama abandoned his campaign promises and pledged to protect the drug industry’s government-granted privileges. The industry also secured subsidies and lengthy government-protected monopolies on biotech drugs,” according the The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney.

Britain’s experience with gun control has meant a huge escalation in crime, particularly home invasion. Here is what happened to Australia. Take the time to watch this video. It is important and the Aussies are trying to warn us. We need to pay attention. Pass it on, share it widely.

Remember that the American people wanted no part of Obama’s Health Care Law. Public opinion has been against it by large numbers, yet here we are, and it is law. John Lott, author of More Guns, less Crime, was at the University of Chicago when Obama was a part-time instructor there. Lott attempted to strike up a conversation, but Obama informed him that he did not believe that people should be allowed to have guns. Obama is stuck in a deep ideological rut. He does not change his mind.

Barack Obama, fresh from an election victory no matter how it was achieved, sees himself as having a mandate to do what he wants. He does not conceive of himself as president of all the people, but as president to those who agree with him. He wants to be a “transformational” president. I wish we understood a little better exactly what he means by that, but I don’t think we would like it. In good community organizer style he is attempting to move when emotions from Sandy Hook are still high, and to rouse them further to pass what he wants. He has assigned Joe Biden to come up with a proposal, but the result of Biden’s committee is already known.

Journalists are already ramping up emotional support for the president. Their love affair is not over, nor are they prepared to do their job as journalists and watchdogs over the government.

Obama has said “The question is whether we are going to be able to have a national conversation” about gun control. We have been having one since before I was born.

The Sacramento Bee reports, in typical Butterfield Fallacy form, that gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data. Over 20 schoolchildren were murdered at Sandy Hook, but over 400 schoolchildren have been killed with guns in Chicago, where strict gun control is the law.

Ideologues never want to look at the statistics, study the history, examine the arguments. Ideologues know what they believe, and that’s the end of it.

Like this:

Related

What a weird title, which claims that Obama doesn’t want any U.S. citizens to own guns, and then in the article claim that he will be working to protect sails by retail giants (“Reportedly he plans to make sure that the new gun control law benefits big businesses that sell weapons”), at the expense of sales at gun shows and through other private transactions.

Then you write, “Britain’s experience with gun control has meant a huge escalation in crime, particularly home invasion.” Huge? Evidence, please? According to the statistics here, crimes are 27.2% down from ten years ago. There is definitely no evidence of a “huge” increase in crime, especially in the rate of crime (i.e., per capita).

As for Australia, here is a more independent (and balanced) analysis of the statistics. Looks as if a lot of the claims of increased crime following the 1997 ban are mainly a case of “Figures don’t lie, but liars sure can figure”.

In any case, nobody is proposing for the United States anything akin to the restrictions on gun ownership that have been imposed by Britain or Australia.

Why, rather than engage in a discussion on what kind of “arms” is it appropriate for U.S. citizens to own, and what should be the processes for keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, are so many Republicans simply following the speaking notes of the NRA?

When I have written on a subject at length quite recently, I usually assume it’s not necessary to repeat myself. The evidence I have seen, which is extensive, shows that crime is up drastically in both Britain and Australia, over the period of the regulation. I do not find Snopes a reliable source.

Barack Obama has stated absolutely that he does not believe anyone should be able to own a gun. It is quite clear that the Democrat aim is an eventual complete ban on weapons. That has always been a Leftist aim. See the Brady bunch. More people are killed with hammers and clubs each year than rifles.

There is not the slightest evidence that registration of guns, banning this kind or that kind of weapon accomplishes anything whatsoever. They always talk about guns being purchased without a background check at guns shows, but my information (admittedly anecdotal) is that gun shows require background checks.
The guns used to commit crimes are usually stolen or bought on the black market, which ‘unexpectedly’ includes rockets, mortars, machine guns and all sorts of military weapons.We have banned “assault weapons” before. Since the term is meaningless and means weapons that someone thinks are scary looking, the ban was completely ineffective. Canada instituted a registration of guns and that was ineffective. We mostly don’t have a gun problem, we have a gang problem.